Kecharitomene

[steve_b]

Yes, and his view would be rejected by another, equally valid, Eastern Orthodox viewpoint. As I said, the problem is that there isn’t a norm of belief in Eastern Orthodoxy, at least outside of the Councils and some broad guidelines. The Old Believers viewed the denial of the IC as a change in the Faith, and broke with the Russian Orthodox Church over it (among numerous other matters). St. Gregory Palamas and Photius explicitely believed and expressed the Immaculate Conception; some Eastern theologians even argued that the very seed of Joachim was purified and Graced so as to contribute to the IC.

Ironically, seven hundred years ago the only debate on the IC that would have occurred would have been a few prominent Latin theologians denying it, and prominent Eastern theologians like St. Gregory Palamas blasting those Latins for yet another “deviation from the Faith”. At the same time as the West had finally put those erroneous theological arguements to rest, the idea that Mary wasn’t Immaculately Conceived caught on as the popular view in the East.

Peace and God bless!

I’m not saying that Bp Kalistos Ware speaks for all Orthodox, but he says clearly the IC is NOT their belief. However Bp Ware also states that if one is so inclined to believe in the IC he wouldn’t call it a heresy.

Quote: (emphasis mine)
:

The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing**.**
For reference and context (scroll down to “Mother of God”)
orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/6.aspx

 

[steve_b]

[snip]

Adam and Eve according to Latin dogma, had perfect Justice and Holiness – Now in Greek – panagia – παν`αγια – means all holy.

So, do the “Orthodox” believe there is some holiness which she lacks?
or equivalently, do the “Orthodox” believe Mary was not in Justice (a right relationship with God and her neighbor).

[snip]

For example, even Jesus increased in gifts – because he was man. But we know Jesus was not like us in sin – although, since he increased in charity, one could argue he was “less” charitable when young.

To make a clarification, I believe scripture says He increased in wisdon and stature.[Lk 2:52]

for a discussion

newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm

 

[Huiou_Theou]

To make a clarification, I believe scripture says He increased in wisdon and stature.[Lk 2:52]

for a discussion

newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm

Um, not to be a bother – but the link you cited has this:

Luke, ii, 52: "And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with …

I think “favor” or “grace” or “charity” are quite related terms. However, to use your segue – how could he rise in stature before God – if he were fully there to begin with? Eg, since sin is a deprivation – how could he increase in stature before God if there were no deprivation? (no sin?) (It’s the same point as before – by the “container” growing but remaining full.)

But, Since the Orthodox like the Greek straight anyway, there are several variants to look at.

For example, a photo of the year 400 codex (photofaxsimilie) of the Tishendorf version is hosted by
alpha.reltech.org/BibleMSS.html
Under volume four, after free log-in, of codex Sinaiticus.
It is on page 31 (a031a.jpg), and the particular sentence begins at the “KAI” found by footnote 6 to the right of the first column.
Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus.

A transcription of Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican library’s ancient Greek version from year ~400AD) is also present on that site, but it isn’t photos of the original like Tischendorf’s.) On page 74, look for the blank one line down from paragraph marker 25. That is Luke 2:52.

Taking all textual variants I have seen into account – here is Luke II, 52 in full Greek with brackets ] marking of alternate textual readings.

Regardless of which variation is believed original, the point remains the same.

Luke 2:52

και `ο] ιησους προεκοπτ-εν εν τ-η]
and [the] Iesous(Jesus) progressed in the ]

σοφι-α και ηλικι-α και χαριτι
wisdom and stature and charity

παρα θεω]/θε-ου] και ανθρωπ-οις
[next to-God]/[of God] and to-men(people).

Notice there are three things he increases in…

χαριτι charity (favor before God) is one of them…

 

[johnnydigit]

Basing an entire dogma on a single word in the bible is certainly a worthy tenet of Protestantism.

your argument was pretty convincing up until this point. nice try though!

 

[Ghosty]

The Russian Old believers saw “sinless since conception” as referring to personal sin.

Actually in their Profession of Faith I’m refering to they speak of the “original stain”, not personal sin. The only online reference I can find to this is here:

Soubbotine cites a passage from the profession of faith made by the Old Believers which reads: “The Mother of the Creator of the whole universe, not only has in no way participated in the original stain, but she remained as pure as the heavens and all beautiful”. (M. Soubbotine, History of the Hierarchy of Bela Krinitza, Moscow, Vol I, pg XLII, in Russian - as quoted in the Jul-Sep 1949 Unitas periodical from the Graymore Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, said magazine now defunct, but a copy supplied to me by Mr James Likoudis, President Emeritus of “Catholics United for the Faith”. The above paragraph comes from the Unitas Periodical).

Until I’m able to dig up the old sources that will have to tide you over. Perhaps you will be able to turn up the Russian-text Profession of Faith in your research, as I’m completely unable to read Russian myself.

As for St. Gregory Palamas and Photius, I’ll be digging up their quotes this week as I have time. I apologize for the sporadic timing of my posts.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ematouk]

Um, not to be a bother – but the link you cited has this:

I think “favor” or “grace” or “charity” are quite related terms. However, to use your segue – how could he rise in stature before God – if he were fully there to begin with? Eg, since sin is a deprivation – how could he increase in stature before God if there were no deprivation? (no sin?) (It’s the same point as before – by the “container” growing but remaining full.)

But, Since the Orthodox like the Greek straight anyway, there are several variants to look at.

For example, a photo of the year 400 codex (photofaxsimilie) of the Tishendorf version is hosted by
alpha.reltech.org/BibleMSS.html
Under volume four, after free log-in, of codex Sinaiticus.
It is on page 31 (a031a.jpg), and the particular sentence begins at the “KAI” found by footnote 6 to the right of the first column.
Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus.

A transcription of Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican library’s ancient Greek version from year ~400AD) is also present on that site, but it isn’t photos of the original like Tischendorf’s.) On page 74, look for the blank one line down from paragraph marker 25. That is Luke 2:52.

Taking all textual variants I have seen into account – here is Luke II, 52 in full Greek with brackets ] marking of alternate textual readings.

Regardless of which variation is believed original, the point remains the same.

Luke 2:52

και `ο] ιησους προεκοπτ-εν εν τ-η]
and [the] Iesous(Jesus) progressed in the ]

σοφι-α και ηλικι-α και χαριτι
wisdom and stature and charity

παρα θεω]/θε-ου] και ανθρωπ-οις
[next to-God]/[of God] and to-men(people).

Notice there are three things he increases in…

χαριτι charity (favor before God) is one of them…

I agree with you here, but I have never noticed this before. I should look at the greek more often. I usually use the greek as a secondary text because it takes longer for me to read then the English.

χαριτι indeed means grace. And Jesus indeed grew in grace even though He was full of grace by definition.

I don’t know about ur analogy tho. I think its better to not use human logic and simply say that grace does not work the way we think it does. The way grace is bestowed is simply beyond our comprehension.

This kind of reminds me of the hesychast controversy. We can only know God by His grace, not by His essence. We can know Him by His grace, but can not know how that grace works nor in what way God wishes it to be bestowed.

I’m leaning more on the side of mystery for this one. Ghosty might have something to say about this. Also I’m not sure if I’m even portreying the Hesychast position properly - there is too much to that topic to summarise down into one sentence.

Slightly off-topic, what is the Catholic view on the Hesychast controversy Ghosty?

God bless.

God bless.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I don’t know about ur analogy tho. I think its better to not use human logic and simply say that grace does not work the way we think it does. The way grace is bestowed is simply beyond our comprehension.

This kind of reminds me of the hesychast controversy. We can only know God by His grace, not by His essence. We can know Him by His grace, but can not know how that grace works nor in what way God wishes it to be bestowed.

Well, my analogy is just that – a tool to try and understand what is being said. I have not arrived at a completely satisfactory answer myself. There is on the Latin side something of a difference of view on what is Grace, in the Holy spirit, and I suppose the effect of that Grace – and whether or not these two are identical in salvation.
So, I am just beginning to explore that also…

Considering we’re at a stopping point, I’ll just bow out and listen to what Ghosty has to offer.
God bless you too, ematouk.

 

[Ghosty]

Slightly off-topic, what is the Catholic view on the Hesychast controversy Ghosty?

I wasn’t going to post on this thread again until I’d finished doing my re-finding of sources, but since you asked so nicely…

There is no Catholic position on the Hesychast controversy because we never had a Hesychast controversy as a whole Communion. That’s the short answer, though.

The longer answer would be that, within the Catholic Church, it was never denied that we directly participate in Divinity without becoming God “as God is God”. The Hesychast controversy arose in the Byzantine tradition because Byzantine monks (Barlaam being the foremost example) denied a real participation in Divinity. The only people in the West to deny a real participation in Divinity were the Protestants, and even then not all Protestants denied it but rather the denial grew within the “Reformation” after they broke with the Church. The Latin Church in the West continued “contemplative prayer”, the prayer of direct union and sharing with the Divine, right up until the modern day, without any internal controversy in the Church. All of our Doctors supported the teaching, and the Council of Trent insists on it indirectly.

The only real issue that comes up regarding the Hesychast controversy is that the theological language of the Latin Church is TOTALLY different from the Byzantine theological language, so both sides can easily misunderstand what the other is saying. For example, when Palamamism was criticized in the West it was not because St. Gregory Palamas argued FOR direct participation in Divinity, but because the Western theologians believed he was DENYING it! The Latins thought St. Gregory Palamas was teaching that we couldn’t share in Divinity, but only in the effects of God working on us, and they rightly condemned that error (which Palamas never taught) by saying that we DO share in Divinity by Grace.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

The big language barrier is this: in the Byzantine theology “essence” includes the idea of “being”, so if you share in the essence of something, you are “being” that thing in some way. In other words, using Byzantine definitions you can’t share in the essence of God without “being” God in the same way that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God. In the Latin theological tradition, however, there is a distinction between “essence” and “being”; the essence is the general definition of something, while the “being” is the particular instance of that essence. To put it more simply, using an example, when something gets hot it shares in the essence of fire, but it is not being fire. Only fire can “be” fire, and even if something else (like a piece of metal) shares in all of its essential attributes (heat, brightness, the ability to ignite other things, ect) it will not “be” fire, but will only participate in the essence of fire.

So in the West it was (and is) said that we share in the Essence of God because Latin theology makes a distinction between the essence and the being. So it’s easy to see why the Latins would think that St. Gregory Palamas was denying the reality of Grace when he said that we don’t share in the essence of God, and it’s equally easy to see why a Byzantine might think that Latins believe we can become a Divine Person.

Here is an example of a Latin Saint and Doctor of the Church teaching on the sharing of Divinity:

1. In order that both these things may be the better understood, let us make a comparison. A ray of sunlight is striking a window. If the window is in any way stained or misty, the sun’s ray will be unable to illumine it and transform it into its own light, totally, as it would if it were clean of all these things, and pure; but it will illumine it to a lesser degree, in proportion as it is less free from those mists and stains; and will do so to a greater degree, in proportion as it is cleaner from them, and this will not be because of the sun’s ray, but because of itself; so much so that, if it be wholly pure and clean, the ray of sunlight will transform it and illumine it in such wise that it will itself seem to be a ray and will give the same light as the ray.

Although in reality the window has a nature distinct from that of the ray itself, however much it may resemble it, yet we may say that that window is a ray of the sun or is light by participation. And the soul is like this window, whereupon is ever beating (or, to express it better, wherein is ever dwelling) this Divine light of the Being of God according to nature, which we have described.

1. In thus allowing God to work in it, the soul (having rid itself of every mist and stain of the creatures, which consists in having its will perfectly united with that of God, for to love is to labour to detach and strip itself for God’s sake of all that is not God) is at once illumined and transformed in God, and God communicates to it His supernatural Being, in such wise that it appears to be God Himself, and has all that God Himself has. And this union comes to pass when God grants the soul this supernatural favour, that all the things of God and the soul are one in participant transformation; and the soul seems to be God rather than a soul, and is indeed God by participation; although it is true that its natural being, though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before, even as the window has likewise a nature distinct from that of the ray, though the ray gives it brightness.

It’s worth pointing out that St. Gregory Palamas is a Saint in the Catholic Church, and his Feast is celebrated in a number of Byzantine-tradition Churches. He’s not at decried as a heretic, but rather is celebrated as a true defender of the Faith, albeit one whose circumstances sadly put him outside of our visible Communion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexius]

I hate to resurrect this thread, but I would like to add a few ideas, It is by far one of the most enlightening threads I have read through in a long time on here…

We don’t, however claim that Mary was free of desire (concupiscence in Latin understanding points more to the propensity to sin) or death (since it is acceptable belief that she died) because she had free will. It was just that since she is full of grace in the highest possible sense, that grace was her strength over desire. She was human too, and even Jesus was tempted in every way.

I do not think this can be emphasised enough. You have brought up something that so many people seem to miss. That fact that the grace she received was greater in power than her desire to sin. With GOD’s help, we truly can conquer our desires and passions. Personally, I interpret “original sin” as being the “deprivation of original justice and holiness.” This is separate from the other consequences such as death, concupiscence, pain, illness, labor, etc. It is a “spiritual death.” These other consequences remain even after baptism. I believe that the Blessed Theotokos was preserved from ancestral/original sin, but those consequences attached to her nature as a human being remained. GOD gave her the grace necessary to conquer her passions and remain pure. It is also important to note that original sin is not some sort of guilt on us. We are guilty of our own sins; however, the original sin is inherited simply because 1) we are heirs of Adam and even more practical 2) we are no longer in the garden. There is more to the garden than meets the eye. To be put out of the garden is to lose the gifts thereof. This does not mean guilt per se…

This is why Orthodox Christians never taught unbaptised babies went to hell. (though it was a major issue in the Catholic church because of inherited guilt to the extent some decided to invent the place of Limbo because they could not reconcile a just God to one who sent unbaptised babies to hell for Adam’s sin)

But, I do not believe God removed His sanctifying grace from us, as though it was some sort of punishment instilled by God. I believe Adam rejected God’s grace and thus he himself removed the grace from his heart. Grace now nolonger works internally, but externally on mankind.

1. I can provide proof that some Orthodox theologians have taught that either we do not know where babies go when they die (w/o baptism) or that they are condemned. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant. The reason this idea came around was because individual theologians were trying to come to an understanding of what happens when an unbaptized infant dies. The infant is without personal sin, yet they are also without sanctifying grace. My personal opinion is that GOD fills them with grace in his presence because they are spotless–without [personal] sin–and saves them. That is merely my opinion, but I ultimately entrust them to their Creator for He alone knows what is best.
2. I totally agree that grace works externally upon mankind. That is the essence of GOD’s grace and I do not think Roman Catholic theology denies that (I know Eastern Catholic theology doesn’t). That is why I do not believe unbaptized infants who die go to hell. I believe this grace moves into them and fills them. That is still just mere opinion and you know what they say about opinions…

Well, in fact, Nita had informed me above that it is not Catholic dogma that Mary was free of concupisence and death.

If Mary still had concupisence and death (but did not have “inherited guilt”), A Catholic would say she was “free from the stain of Original Sin”, but an Orthodox Christian using his own terminology would say she was “still under the effects of the Original Sin”.

I see it like this. Imagine a lady is walking up a hill her whole life. She has an inclination to slip backwards (to sin). But now imagine someone is pushing her up the hill (grace), so that in obedience she doesn’t slip backwards. The inclination is still there, but it is counteracted by grace. Just because a person does not slip backwards, it does not mean the inclination is not there. Just because a person did not sin, it doesnt mean the inclination was not there. I guess its a hard thing to explain.

1. I likewise would not say a person is “free from the stain of Original Sin.” Indeed, the Blessed Theotokos was still “under the effects of Original Sin,” meaning death, concupiscence, etc. We are (Latins and Greeks); however, using different emphasis of this. “Free from stain of Original Sin” is metaphorical language referring to the deprivation of grace in the soul. This “stain” is simply the emptiness of the soul, or domination of evil that begins to fill it. “Under the effects” refers to the other maladies like death and concupiscence that remain.
2. I like your analogy of the woman going up the hill. That is what I believe happened wih the Blessed Theotokos. She still had concupiscence, but it was counteracted by GOD’s abundant grace.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[jimmy]

Nevertheless, whether the Orthodox admit it or not, they do believe in the Immaculate Conception but word it in a different yet equally valid manner. They call her Panhagios. The reasoning is similar to that drawn from kecharitomene. If she was already fully-graced or all-holy before the angel’s greeting, then there was no room for sin, which would be the case if she had concupiscence from original sin.

No they don’t. If you are to say that the Orthodox believe in the Immaculate Conception you would also have to conclude that they believe that all men are Immaculately concieved because they do not believe that Mary was preserved from Original Sin. They believe that Original Sin is simply death. What we recieved from Adam and Eve is death. And death is the cause of all sin. So, no, they do not profess that Mary is concieved immaculately without OS because that would mean she was not subject to death and that would contradict tradition. So they believe Mary was concieved exactly like every other man.

However, what they will say is that she never committed a sin. She was pure. This is purely an aspect of her will to do Gods will. That is not the same thing as the Immaculate Conception which says that Mary was concieved without any stain of OS which basically means that God acted supernatural to prevent her from being touched by sin.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Jimmy,

So if we as Catholics hold that Original Sin means an irresistable urge in man to sin, then the Immaculate Conception is the only logical conclusion. Otherwise, if Mary had Original Sin, she would of had an irresistable urge to sin that she either indulged in (thus contradicting her sinlessness) or she refrained from indulging in it through her own mysterious power (thus denying the compelling nature of Original Sin itself).

Would this be correct?

 

[ematouk]

No they don’t. If you are to say that the Orthodox believe in the Immaculate Conception you would also have to conclude that they believe that all men are Immaculately concieved because they do not believe that Mary was preserved from Original Sin. They believe that Original Sin is simply death. What we recieved from Adam and Eve is death. And death is the cause of all sin. So, no, they do not profess that Mary is concieved immaculately without OS because that would mean she was not subject to death and that would contradict tradition. So they believe Mary was concieved exactly like every other man.

However, what they will say is that she never committed a sin. She was pure. This is purely an aspect of her will to do Gods will. That is not the same thing as the Immaculate Conception which says that Mary was concieved without any stain of OS which basically means that God acted supernatural to prevent her from being touched by sin.

Amen Brother.

Im not disagreeing with you but I also wanted to add that we as Orthodox Christians also can not deny that Mary was personally sinless.

Mary was called “spotless (Gr achrantos) and ever-glorious Mother of God” in the 6th session of the Ecumenical council of 2 Nicea (see newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm)

We also affirm this in our liturgy every Sunday. I often hear Catholics tell me “why do u think Mary was not sinless”? We do believe her to be sinless. We simply reject the idea that she is without “Original Sin” using our own terminology.

God bless you all.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy,

So if we as Catholics hold that Original Sin means an irresistable urge in man to sin, then the Immaculate Conception is the only logical conclusion. Otherwise, if Mary had Original Sin, she would of had an irresistable urge to sin that she either indulged in (thus contradicting her sinlessness) or she refrained from indulging in it through her own mysterious power (thus denying the compelling nature of Original Sin itself).

Would this be correct?

I don’t think that the western view of OS says that the urge to sin is irresistable. That sounds like the protestant idea of total depravity. The Catholic view is that we maintain our free will and can deny sin even though we may be severely weakened.

I don’t think the Orthodox see it according to the lines you see though either. The Orthodox view salvation from the perspective of theosis. Adam’s sin caused death to all of humanity and it also caused a seperation from God’s Grace so theosis was impossible. So from the time of Adam till Christ Grace was with held from man. Mary might not have sinned of her own accord(after all we all have free will) but that does not mean she was saved of her own accord. I think that they would say that she did not sin during her life but at the annunciation she recieved the baptism of Christ as we recieved when we were babies. At this point she recieved the Holy Spirit. And at this point theosis began for her.

The problem is that the east has had different theologians who they followed than the west and they faced different questions. The west sees OS as the loss of Original Justice and Holiness. Consequently there is some kind of guilt(although not personal) that results in eternal seperation from God. The Byzantines don’t see guilt as a matter of OS though. They see Original Sin as primarily death and the loss of theosis as mentioned above. I think they(St. Maximus the Confessor specifically said this) speculate that concupicence is the result of death. Man realized that his life would end and as a result he got greedy and tries to suck up as much in life as he can. And all sins result from this. And the loss of theosis is why the prophets and holy men of the OT went to Sheol. This is not hell, but an in between place while they waited for Christ.

This is my interpretation of things. Hopefully if there are any Orthodox they can clear up any errors that I may have. This thread and writing these posts has actually helped me make connections with the Byzantine understanding of sin. I think I understand it a little better now.

 

[porthos11]

No they don’t. If you are to say that the Orthodox believe in the Immaculate Conception you would also have to conclude that they believe that all men are Immaculately concieved because they do not believe that Mary was preserved from Original Sin. They believe that Original Sin is simply death. What we recieved from Adam and Eve is death. And death is the cause of all sin. So, no, they do not profess that Mary is concieved immaculately without OS because that would mean she was not subject to death and that would contradict tradition. So they believe Mary was concieved exactly like every other man.

However, what they will say is that she never committed a sin. She was pure. This is purely an aspect of her will to do Gods will. That is not the same thing as the Immaculate Conception which says that Mary was concieved without any stain of OS which basically means that God acted supernatural to prevent her from being touched by sin.

I still posit that the Orthodox do believe in the Immaculate Conception, but not based on their definition of Original Sin (death), but rather ours (lack of grace). That would indeed be different. We Latins have the tendency to think of negative formulations, while the Easterns use positive formulations. No, I do not insist that they believe according to their terminology, but according to the fact that she had been graced from the beginning.

They believe Mary is Panagia, and that it even extends to her past. To be panagia has leaves no room for sin. I simply hold that Mary had been filled to the brim with grace from her origin, which is just a positive formulation of the negative Latin wording.

 

[ematouk]

I still posit that the Orthodox do believe in the Immaculate Conception, but not based on their definition of Original Sin (death), but rather ours (lack of grace). That would indeed be different. We Latins have the tendency to think of negative formulations, while the Easterns use positive formulations. No, I do not insist that they believe according to their terminology, but according to the fact that she had been graced from the beginning.

They believe Mary is Panagia, and that it even extends to her past. To be panagia has leaves no room for sin. I simply hold that Mary had been filled to the brim with grace from her origin, which is just a positive formulation of the negative Latin wording.

have you read the Ecumenical council of 3 Constantinople?

“… from the synod of 125 bishops dear to God meeting under the same most holy pope, as according with the holy synod at Chalcedon and with the Tome of the all-holy and most blessed Leo, pope of the same elder Rome, which was sent to Flavian…” (3 Constantinople “Exposition of faith” taken from papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum06.htm))

Do you think that us Eastern Orthodox also believe Pope St Leo to be sinless? Do you as a Catholic believe Pope St Leo to be sinless?

There are many examples of this in the 1st seven councils, this is the only one I could remember at the moment though.

But as I said earlier, we believe Mary to be achrantos, that is spotless (sinless, immaculate), but not without Original sin.

I like your response Jimmy, however, there are some glaringly obvious errors (misportreyals of Orthodox belief) in it which I dont have time to respond to now, but I will respond to soon.

God bless.

 

[porthos11]

have you read the Ecumenical council of 3 Constantinople?

“… from the synod of 125 bishops dear to God meeting under the same most holy pope, as according with the holy synod at Chalcedon and with the Tome of the all-holy and most blessed Leo, pope of the same elder Rome, which was sent to Flavian…” (3 Constantinople “Exposition of faith” taken from papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum06.htm)

Do you think that us Eastern Orthodox also believe Pope St Leo to be sinless? Do you as a Catholic believe Pope St Leo to be sinless?

Well, Pope Leo was never referred to as kecharitomeno either.

There are many examples of this in the 1st seven councils, this is the only one I could remember at the moment though.

But as I said earlier, we believe Mary to be achrantos, that is spotless (sinless, immaculate), but not without Original sin.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is based on the Latin definition of original sin, not yours. You do believe in spotlessness, and fullness of grace. You even accept that that grace came to her in the past, prior to the angel’s announcement. If you ignore the Latin term “original sin” and not compare it to your concept of the term, and merely think of lack of grace, then your belief is indeed compatible with the Roman dogma.